Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 3 December 2007 (→‎Oppose: o). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Transhumanist

Voice your opinion (talk page) (17/1/0); Scheduled to end 10:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) - This is his third RfA. The first (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist) was a year ago. TT (if I may call him that) made the mistake of nominating himself shortly after "losing" a mildly heated MfD debate. Some users were also concerned about TT's self-stated desire to become an admin.

Six months later (and therefore six months ago) I was one of several editors who nominated TT once more. This time (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 2), there were some lingering worries about the MfD, criticism of a weak answer to Q1 (why do you want the tools?) and a conflict that TT had disclosed in Q3 that he'd handled badly, back in the Spring of 2006.

So, why am I renominating such a seemingly flawed candidate? Well, I could tell you that The Transhumanist is an able, helpful Wikipedian, who invests a lot of time in the Project. But let's cut to the bottom-line RfA issues, which IMHO for TT boil down to civility/keeping cool and need for the tools.

I tested TT's civility to the limit recently. I fiercely (well, about as fiercely as I do anything round here) and steadfastly opposed a pet project of TT's at WP:FLC. I submit Exhibit C. I think it's worth reading. When you're done with that, please examine this litle exchange. This blew me away and made me ready to accept that TT has learned some lessons and can debate with force, but in the right spirit.

The need for the tools is easier to explain. I simply asked him here. I presume that by the time you read these words, he's given an equally good answer here too.

So that's TT. A flawed background, but one which I believe he's learned from. And, despite the scars of two failed RfAs and the personal criticism they entailed, he's prepared to go through it all again. Well, I trust him with the tools. Do you? Dweller 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I feel like I've just been shot.  :-) In the heart. So, with my right hand placed over this gaping chest wound, I solemnly swear to uphold the policies of Wikipedia, maintain its spirit, and defend it with my life. With nervous anticipation, I accept...

>passes out<

The Transhumanist 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]


There's a very important navigation subsystem under development at Portal talk:Contents. We are designing subject-based contents pages to replace the portal links on the main page! Your feedback is greatly needed. Please come and take a look. -TT

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Dweller has already asked me this. Please see my answers on my talk page here. For archival purposes, here's a permanent link.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, I just passed the 30,000 edit mark (including my previous accounts). Throughout most of those edits, I've tried to systematically build the structures for helping users find what they need. What good is information if you can't find it? I've dedicated most of my time here working on Wikipedia's contents and help systems. My contributions are summarized on my user page.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Dweller covered this pretty well above. I've learned that most conflicts are communication problems - misunderstandings that can be clarified and resolved with continued conversation and effort. [1] I've made the stereotypical progression from competitive and adversarial to cooperative and consensus-minded. I think that I can safely say, that I've been wikified. These days when I'm in the wrong, I own up to my errors, apologize, and offer to help. [2] [3]
Optional questions from Dekimasu:
4. Is there currently a rough consensus as to what namespace lists of lists should be in? Should the featured status of a list prevent it from being moved to a different namespace?
A:
5. When is it appropriate for an administrator to reverse the actions of another administrator?
A:
Optional questions from EncycloPetey:
6. You seem to edit many lists of basic topics over a broad range of topics. In particular, I noticed this set of edits. Would you do anything differently if you edited that same list today?
A:
7. I see many edits made to lists of basic topics, but few edits to WikiProject talk pages in related subjects. How does your personal edit philosophy reconcile this?
A:
Optional Questions from The Placebo Effect
8. How do you interpret Ignore all rules? In what possible circumstances do you think it be acceptable to cite IAR when using an Sysop tool?
9. If this RfA is successful, would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The Transhumanist before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. As nom. --Dweller 10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I know TH has had some issues with some people before as evidenced by his previous RfA. However I believe his work demonstrates a competence for working here and his school, while derided by some, evidences a desire to help others. As an admin he will not harm our project but can and will bring needed experience. - JodyB talk 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - per my guidelines and the fact that the user seems to have grown greatly since their last RFA. All the best, — Rudget contributions 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Lara❤Love 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support This user would make a great Administrator. (Especially with an awesome total of 1909 edits in November of 2007) Redmarkviolinist (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Of course. The Rambling Man 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. You're freaking kidding me! I can't believe you're not already an admin. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I don't see any problem.--NAHID 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support This should have happened already, much earlier. I, for one, have always looked up to this editor. Amazing understanding of the way Wikipedia works, and a comprehensive knowledge of the policies and guidelines. Did I forget to mention a helping attitude? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Glad to see you back again; pleased to support this time. Jmlk17 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - have seen The Transhumanist change for the better over time. It has been a difficult journey, especially with those two past RfAs, but I think you are now ready. I would now trust you to know when to talk to people first and to use the tools responsibly. Carcharoth 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support! *MindstormsKid* 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I do not recall ever having seen anything but good contributions from this editor. bd2412 T 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No doubt. A great user. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Very Strong Support - I will keep supporting this really capable, hard-working and completely dedicated to the project editor as long as it takes...--Cometstyles 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support - has one of the most useful sets of userpages on the 'pedia, evidence enough of TT's understanding of this place and its aims. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - good user.   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I object. An important objection in his previous nom was that he was overly formal, too bureaucratic, and lacking in actual understanding of Wikipedia. This nom ignores that point (instead putting up a straw man of why his previous nom failed - 36 opposes on a withdrawn nom is a far cry from "some lingering worries about [an] MfD"), but more importantly I have seen no evidence that TTH has improved with respect to this earlier criticism. >Radiant< 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry if my nom was misleading in any way. There was no intention to deceive. I cited 3 reasons people found to object... I could have listed others or indeed all of them. The link is there for anyone to follow for themselves - I tried to summarise fairly. It seems I failed. Sorry. --Dweller 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    / Teardrop—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlae (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose' I'm afraid I don't understand your answer to Q1. Could you please answer more concisely on this page? Dlohcierekim 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist_3&oldid=175567713"